Couple Of Killer Comments

They're on two different subjects, but they're both really awesome. Here's Polwogy responding to a query as to whether the phrase "powerfully connected" is grammatically corrected:

Yes, I think a connection can be
powerful. I'd say the electrical connection between generator and
appliance is more powerful than a string that follows the same route.

Other than that, you're moving into realms of poetic license and
prescriptive versus descriptive grammar, etc. Which, to me, comes down
to context and the aim of communication. Take the split infinitive: For
generations we've been told that that's an abomination (prescriptive
grammar) but if you look at the actual usage in literary works, some
great writers have always done it (descriptive grammar). But to me,
more important is the impact. "To boldly go" versus "to go boldly" --
the former is far more bold-feeling than the latter. It may (or may
not) be incorrect English, but I would argue it is the more correct communication. In any case, if you want to open your SciFi show with an exciting promise of adventure, there's no comparison, right?

When you write a poem (or a New Yorker article) part of the point is
the words, to grab your attention and move you out of reading for
information into savoring the words and images. In that case, use all
the arresting and dislocating words you can -- while still conveying
the ideas you want to convey.

On the other hand, when I write a proposal to the National Science
Foundation, the last thing I want them to do is stumble over the words,
to get them out of the flow of logic, or give them any reason to doubt
my competence or communication skills. In that instance, I want the
language to be as quite as possible, if you know what I mean.

My philosophy is that the important part is communication -- getting
the idea, image or feeling from one person to another. Rules of
language are important facilitators to that -- if we didn't have
guidelines, nothing would get through. But when handled with care and
skill, breaking and/or bending the rules can sometimes be the best way
to get your message across, and I think that's far more important than
splitting an infinitive occasionally.

Sully's mildly OCD about his
fixations, but the advantage of OCD is that one becomes very very
well-informed about every detail of one's compulsion. One retains the
whole timeline, and all the details; and before slotting in new data,
that data is relentlessly compared to each piece of existing data.

Palin had the misfortune of being someone Sully could project his
Thatcher OCD onto. His first posts about her , when little was known,
glowed with hope and optimistic spin that she might be a common sense
live-and-let-live fiscal conservative and social liberal. His early
love obviously wasn't starburst-related, it was hope that she was Young
Alaskan Maggie. Unfortunately for Palin, Sully digs and digs and digs
into the things he loves. Her hype was never built on solid
foundations, and he checked under the floorboards quickly, and stared
into the first of many dank flooded subbasements of horror.

And now he's hooked. What could have been an OCD of love and respect
tempered with stark disagreements and challenges (q.v. Obama) is now a
Cassandran compulsion to examine what others looking only at the
surface don't see, a mad prophet's need to make others listen before
it's too late, and an old school journalist's certainty that now they
can't accept anything from Palin without getting three pieces of
independent confirmation.